Depends
Is 1000 a good rating?
Sort:
1000 is good for pea brains who aren't naturally 1900.
Sep 16, 2023
0
#246
Uhhh what if somebody (like me) got tricked by a friend to play a game of chess and then he cheated? He also set the ratings to -400 if lost and +400 if win!
Can everyone just relax. Apparently surfers say that best surfer on the beach is the one having most fun.
Just think about that . . .
Sep 26, 2023
0
#248
jaro488 wrote:
To be more specific, this is how the chess.com rating system basically works with estimates for years of experience based on someone who spends around 4 hours a week studying chess(my opinion):
100-700: new to chess/absolute novice ~1 month experience
700-1000: beginner ~3-6 months experience
1000-1200: hobbyist ~9-15 months experience
1200-1400 weak intermediate, class “D” level player ~1-2 years experience
1400-1600 strong intermediate, class “C” level player, ~3-4 years experience
1600-1800: advanced, class “B” level player, ~5-6 years experience
1800-2000: very advanced to expert, class “A” player, ~ 7-8 years experience
2000-2100: expert level, ~10 years experience
2100-2200: Candidate Master(CM), ~ 11 years experience
2200-2400 National Masters and Fide Masters, ~12-14 years experience
2400-2500 International Master (IM), ~15 years experience
2500-2650 Grandmaster, ~ 17-20 years experience
2650-2700 Very strong GM, ~20-25 years experience
2700+ Super GM, ~25+ years experience
hope this helps
I think this is pretty accurate actually! When I compare the ratings of people in my club, our GM chess professor, the kids starting out, etc. this all maps out quite perfectly. Need more data to be sure though, I'd like to see who are the outliers a.k.a prodigies XD although I know people who have reached a plateau, very sad, I hope I don't become one of them... *sigh*
Sep 26, 2023
0
#249
cogadhtintreach wrote:
1000 is good for pea brains who aren't naturally 1900.
Bill Gates is like ELO 400, do you think he's a pea brain?
i once beat a 3200 bot i think
Sep 26, 2023
0
#251
In what? Blitz, Correspondence, OTB? It is not the same and sometimes can be differences of 100s points among them.
IMO the most representative is rapid. The people like me that are between 0-1500 are all begginers. From 1500 to 2000 intermediates and 2000 and above advanced.
so is someone with 1500 a beginner or a intermediate?
Oct 12, 2023
0
#253
wiwend wrote:
In my experience this is what I think (rapid)
100-400 - Usually really bad, and if not, cheaters.
400-700 - Meh grasp of the King's pawn, meh tactics, still drop pieces.
700-1000 - Usually know one good opening as white about 10 moves deep but has absolutely no idea what to do as black
1000-1200 - Usually the diff between a 1200 and a 1500 or higher is that they hang pieces and sometimes simple tactics, otherwise they have a surprisingly good grip of tactics.
1200-1500 - 1400s for some reason used to be good but now they aren't. 1500 is good though.
1500-1700 - There are a select few players who can play well here also some OTB geniuses can be around here, 1500s usually don't blunder easily but can easily be outplayed.
1700-1900 - This is big boi territory, I usually don't really care if I'm paired with this rating range because I lose 1 in 20 games against them (and they're high 1800s in 15+10), meaning i win 19/20 against them. Like they know their tactics and decent openings but you'll see a lot of cheap opening tricks (stafford, ICBM, fried liver etc)
1900-2100 - The most annoying rating range. For two reasons. 1. almost everyone plays d4, 2. if they play e4, its some cringe line that isn't an easy one (sure i play the french) but its true.
2100-2300 -
My peak on chess.com over the 5 years I've been on this site has been 2355 rapid. You cannot beat someone in this rating range because they hung a piece or blundered a tactic. Most of the time, you have to outplay them and mind you, most 2100s+ will mop the floor with a 1700-1800 quite often.
2300-2500 -
The only two 2300s I've ever beaten was one game where i trapped a 2350 in a mating net (which was very hard to spot for anyone) and in the other one, when i was 1600, I was down a pawn and then he blundered the exchange and then the game.
As someone who is an 1150 in rapid, I feel like there is more nuance in the rating levels between 700 and 1200. I Feel like openings are not really relevant, since there are 2000s that only play one opening as white. I find one of the key differences at these levels, more so at 1000-1200 is that players do not develop properly, they just blast pawns forward without reason because "pushing pawns is good" and they are very 'trade happy". They also tend to play very reactionary.
Oct 12, 2023
0
#254
cod3_zombie wrote:
so is someone with 1500 a beginner or a intermediate?
I think its relative, a 2000+ might consider a 1500 a beginner but I wouldn't call a 1500 a complete beginner, that is absurd. I watch a fair bit of instructional chess content, I do puzzles etc, I'm only rated 1150 but I wouldnt consider myself a beginner even though I know I am not very good.
so is someone with a 1500 a beginner or intermediate? you didn't answer the question.
Oct 13, 2023
0
#256
Sorry, I thought it was obvious. 1500 is definitely intermediate imo.
jesus christ, finally!
ThatGuyNamedJeff wrote:
I believe 1000 is above average on chess.com, no idea if that is the case for other sites though
The average rating is 400. 1000 is a fairly good rating.
lol